Topic: What has Ron Paul done?
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #13,703
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #245,055
I was expecting a blank page. :3
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #245,058
> Is the only congressman to hit a homerun at the Congressional Baseball Games
> He was the 220 yard dash state champion at Dormont High School
Wow, they really had to reach for some of these. It makes the list sound a little desperate.
> He was the 220 yard dash state champion at Dormont High School
Wow, they really had to reach for some of these. It makes the list sound a little desperate.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #245,065
@previous (C)
Not really. They are actually quite interesting little tidbits about Ron Paul. Many people care immensely about not just politicians' good looks, but physical health/fitness.
Not really. They are actually quite interesting little tidbits about Ron Paul. Many people care immensely about not just politicians' good looks, but physical health/fitness.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 55 seconds later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #245,066
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #245,068
@previous (C)
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #245,070
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 24 seconds later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #245,071
buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 19 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #245,525
@245,065 (A)
as they should be. We don't want our president dropping dead from a heart attack during his term.
as they should be. We don't want our president dropping dead from a heart attack during his term.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #245,659
@previous (buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY)
That's why they have the office of Vice President. It makes no sense to vote for someone whose policy you disagree with over someone whose policy you agree with because you think the former is more likely to survive a term!
That's why they have the office of Vice President. It makes no sense to vote for someone whose policy you disagree with over someone whose policy you agree with because you think the former is more likely to survive a term!
toaster !AUIkTW/L46 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #245,660
> what has ron paul done?
> he has not
> he has not
> he has not
> he has not
> he has not
> he has not
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #245,663
@previous (toaster !AUIkTW/L46)
That is what we want to see. We don't want to see how many wars he started, we want to see how many wars he voted against!
That is what we want to see. We don't want to see how many wars he started, we want to see how many wars he voted against!
Born this Way !dLadyGAgAA joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 34 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #245,672
dw !AUIkTW/L46 replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #245,674
@245,663 (A)
so your idea of a good president is just sitting in his office all day?
so your idea of a good president is just sitting in his office all day?
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #245,685
@245,672 (Born this Way !dLadyGAgAA)
> Signed the Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act, which provides health care to 11 million kids -- 4 million of whom were previously uninsured
Unconstitutional.
> Issued executive order to repeal Bush era restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research
Unconstitutional.
> Developed stimulus package, which includes approx. $18 billion for nondefense scientific research and development
I can't believe some people still use the word "stimulus" in a positive sense lol.
> Issued executive order to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay
On Jan 7, 2011, President Obama signed the 2011 Defense Authorization Bill which contains provisions preventing the transfer of Guantanamo prisoners to the mainland or to other foreign countries, and thus effectively stops the closure of the detention facility.
kinda negates that lol
> Ended Bush administration's CIA program of 'enhanced interrogation methods' by requiring that the Army field manual be used as the guide for terrorism interrogations
On January 22, 2009 President Obama signed an executive order requiring the CIA to use only the 19 interrogation methods outlined in the United States Army Field Manual on interrogations "unless the Attorney General with appropriate consultation provides further guidance."
i.e. hasn't ended 'enhanced interrogation methods'.
> Increased minority access to capital
LOL. We President Now! But seriously wtf? He's bragging about forcing banks to give loans to people who otherwise wouldn't qualify... lol GFC
So basically he's lied and violated the constitution. COOL! THANKS OBAMA!
> Signed the Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act, which provides health care to 11 million kids -- 4 million of whom were previously uninsured
Unconstitutional.
> Issued executive order to repeal Bush era restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research
Unconstitutional.
> Developed stimulus package, which includes approx. $18 billion for nondefense scientific research and development
I can't believe some people still use the word "stimulus" in a positive sense lol.
> Issued executive order to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay
On Jan 7, 2011, President Obama signed the 2011 Defense Authorization Bill which contains provisions preventing the transfer of Guantanamo prisoners to the mainland or to other foreign countries, and thus effectively stops the closure of the detention facility.
kinda negates that lol
> Ended Bush administration's CIA program of 'enhanced interrogation methods' by requiring that the Army field manual be used as the guide for terrorism interrogations
On January 22, 2009 President Obama signed an executive order requiring the CIA to use only the 19 interrogation methods outlined in the United States Army Field Manual on interrogations "unless the Attorney General with appropriate consultation provides further guidance."
i.e. hasn't ended 'enhanced interrogation methods'.
> Increased minority access to capital
LOL. We President Now! But seriously wtf? He's bragging about forcing banks to give loans to people who otherwise wouldn't qualify... lol GFC
So basically he's lied and violated the constitution. COOL! THANKS OBAMA!
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #245,686
@245,674 (dw !AUIkTW/L46)
YES! Sitting in his office and NOT starting wars; NOT assassinating US citizens, NOT arresting people for drinking raw milk, NOT arresting people for drugs, NOT selling guns to Mexican drug cartels, etc etc.
YES! Sitting in his office and NOT starting wars; NOT assassinating US citizens, NOT arresting people for drinking raw milk, NOT arresting people for drugs, NOT selling guns to Mexican drug cartels, etc etc.
dw !AUIkTW/L46 replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #245,687
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #245,690
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #245,701
@previous (C)
Are you trolling or is this your serious, reasoned opinion? If the latter, kindly point me to the clause that gives the federal government the power to fund healthcare or research.
Are you trolling or is this your serious, reasoned opinion? If the latter, kindly point me to the clause that gives the federal government the power to fund healthcare or research.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #245,703
@245,687 (dw !AUIkTW/L46)
The president is commander in chief of the armed forces. He also has the power to veto bills of congress.
The president is commander in chief of the armed forces. He also has the power to veto bills of congress.
buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #245,705
@245,659 (A)
I would never choose a presidential candidate solely based on health but it is a big factor for many. That's why the health problems of various presidents such as Kennedy FDR and were hidden .
http://www.vacupractor.com/famous-people/john-f-kennedy-back-pain/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt
I would never choose a presidential candidate solely based on health but it is a big factor for many. That's why the health problems of various presidents such as Kennedy FDR and were hidden .
http://www.vacupractor.com/famous-people/john-f-kennedy-back-pain/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #245,709
buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #245,712
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #245,727
@245,701 (A)
Yes, it is my serious, reasoned opinion that you are back on your 'everything I disagree with is unconstitutional' schtick.
Yes, it is my serious, reasoned opinion that you are back on your 'everything I disagree with is unconstitutional' schtick.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #245,732
@previous (C)
No, you have proven you were trolling by not showing constitutional authority for this spending. You either think I'm right or don't know if I'm right. Either way, cease trolling.
No, you have proven you were trolling by not showing constitutional authority for this spending. You either think I'm right or don't know if I'm right. Either way, cease trolling.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #245,819
Erad67 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #245,835
> Oh God, he's back on the 'everything I disagree with is unconstitutional' schtick.
It appears you either haven't read the US Constitution or have forgotten what it says. The powers of the US federal government are quite limited. Most of what the US federal government has done for a very long time has been unconstitutional.
The Constitutional powers of the office of President are VERY limited. The position of president was not created to be a position of strong power. He approves or veto's laws passed by Congress (powers which can be overturned by another branch of the government), he is the commander in chief of the military (which has little to do when Congress has not declared war), and he has to give a state of the union address to Congress at least once a year.
It appears you either haven't read the US Constitution or have forgotten what it says. The powers of the US federal government are quite limited. Most of what the US federal government has done for a very long time has been unconstitutional.
The Constitutional powers of the office of President are VERY limited. The position of president was not created to be a position of strong power. He approves or veto's laws passed by Congress (powers which can be overturned by another branch of the government), he is the commander in chief of the military (which has little to do when Congress has not declared war), and he has to give a state of the union address to Congress at least once a year.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #245,845
@245,732 (H)
> not showing constitutional authority
Constitutional authority for Congress to pass laws and for the President to sign them into law is pretty solid. The constitutional authority of executive decrees has been wrangled around a bit over the years, but it is generally accepted on constitutional grounds as well.
You're just dismissing things as unconstitutional without grounds.
> not showing constitutional authority
Constitutional authority for Congress to pass laws and for the President to sign them into law is pretty solid. The constitutional authority of executive decrees has been wrangled around a bit over the years, but it is generally accepted on constitutional grounds as well.
You're just dismissing things as unconstitutional without grounds.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #245,869
@previous (C)
I suggest you actually read the constitution. Here is a helpful link:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
I particularly suggest that you read Acticle 1, Sections 8 and 9; Article 2; and the first 10 amendments.
Once again, you fail to provide constitutional authority for the aforementioned proposals.
I suggest you actually read the constitution. Here is a helpful link:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
I particularly suggest that you read Acticle 1, Sections 8 and 9; Article 2; and the first 10 amendments.
Once again, you fail to provide constitutional authority for the aforementioned proposals.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 42 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #245,872
@previous (A)
Once again you fail to provide any reason for any of this to be unconstitutional.
The constitutional authority of Congress to legislate is right there in your link - the constitution is pretty clear about that. What exactly you are claiming is wrong here?
Once again you fail to provide any reason for any of this to be unconstitutional.
The constitutional authority of Congress to legislate is right there in your link - the constitution is pretty clear about that. What exactly you are claiming is wrong here?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 7 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #246,001
@previous (C)
> Once again you fail to provide any reason for any of this to be unconstitutional.
If it's not in the constitution, it's unconstitutional. You have not shown the aforementioned issues to be constitutional - they are therefore unconstitutional.
> The constitutional authority of Congress to legislate is right there in your link - the constitution is pretty clear about that. What exactly you are claiming is wrong here?
Please actually read the constitution. That you persist in this error demonstrates that you did not read it. Congress only has power to legislate over several specifically enumerated areas.
> Once again you fail to provide any reason for any of this to be unconstitutional.
If it's not in the constitution, it's unconstitutional. You have not shown the aforementioned issues to be constitutional - they are therefore unconstitutional.
> The constitutional authority of Congress to legislate is right there in your link - the constitution is pretty clear about that. What exactly you are claiming is wrong here?
Please actually read the constitution. That you persist in this error demonstrates that you did not read it. Congress only has power to legislate over several specifically enumerated areas.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,150
@previous (A)
The process by which a bill such as the Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act passes into law, detailing the role of both Congress and the President, is clearly spelled out in the constitution. Congressional power to spend is also generally recognized.
Executive orders have been being issued for over 200 years and are generally seen as an extension of the responsibilities of presidential office as detailed in the Constitution.
All of this has a clear constitutional basis. Your unfounded and ill-informed assertions demonstrate an amazing lack of awareness. I'm afraid you need to read a little more closely.
The process by which a bill such as the Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act passes into law, detailing the role of both Congress and the President, is clearly spelled out in the constitution. Congressional power to spend is also generally recognized.
Executive orders have been being issued for over 200 years and are generally seen as an extension of the responsibilities of presidential office as detailed in the Constitution.
All of this has a clear constitutional basis. Your unfounded and ill-informed assertions demonstrate an amazing lack of awareness. I'm afraid you need to read a little more closely.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 8 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,287
@previous (C)
> The process by which a bill such as the Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act passes into law, detailing the role of both Congress and the President, is clearly spelled out in the constitution.
Bills authorized by Section 1 Article 8 may be passed into law this way. You have yet to show that this bill is authorized by the Constitution.
> Congressional power to spend is also generally recognized.
Incorrect. It is specifically recognized, for those areas contained in Article 1 Section 8. Spending outside of these areas is unconstitutional.
> Executive orders have been being issued for over 200 years and are generally seen as an extension of the responsibilities of presidential office as detailed in the Constitution.
"Executive orders" are directives to government agencies, used to direct said agencies to fulfilled legislation passed by Congress. Therefore, the following classes of executive orders are unconstitutional:
- executive orders pursuant of legislation not authorized by Section 1 Article 8.
- executive orders that contradict congressional legislation
- executive orders directing action beyond congressional legislation
- executive orders to private citizens
> All of this has a clear constitutional basis. Your unfounded and ill-informed assertions demonstrate an amazing lack of awareness. I'm afraid you need to read a little more closely.
You have shown no congressional authorization for any of the contested bills. You have merely shown the procedure for passing authorized bills.
> The process by which a bill such as the Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act passes into law, detailing the role of both Congress and the President, is clearly spelled out in the constitution.
Bills authorized by Section 1 Article 8 may be passed into law this way. You have yet to show that this bill is authorized by the Constitution.
> Congressional power to spend is also generally recognized.
Incorrect. It is specifically recognized, for those areas contained in Article 1 Section 8. Spending outside of these areas is unconstitutional.
> Executive orders have been being issued for over 200 years and are generally seen as an extension of the responsibilities of presidential office as detailed in the Constitution.
"Executive orders" are directives to government agencies, used to direct said agencies to fulfilled legislation passed by Congress. Therefore, the following classes of executive orders are unconstitutional:
- executive orders pursuant of legislation not authorized by Section 1 Article 8.
- executive orders that contradict congressional legislation
- executive orders directing action beyond congressional legislation
- executive orders to private citizens
> All of this has a clear constitutional basis. Your unfounded and ill-informed assertions demonstrate an amazing lack of awareness. I'm afraid you need to read a little more closely.
You have shown no congressional authorization for any of the contested bills. You have merely shown the procedure for passing authorized bills.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,295
@previous (A)
> Spending outside of these areas is unconstitutional.
Please see: General Welfare Clause
I thought you said you had read the Constitution?
> Therefore, the following classes of executive orders are unconstitutional...
LOLno Even the Supreme Court doesn't make blanket claims like that, preferring instead to decide constitutionality on a case-by-case basis. The limitations you mention are certainly not listed specifically anywhere in the constitution and don't seem to have a precedent anywhere, but thanks for more of your personal interpretation.
> Spending outside of these areas is unconstitutional.
Please see: General Welfare Clause
I thought you said you had read the Constitution?
> Therefore, the following classes of executive orders are unconstitutional...
LOLno Even the Supreme Court doesn't make blanket claims like that, preferring instead to decide constitutionality on a case-by-case basis. The limitations you mention are certainly not listed specifically anywhere in the constitution and don't seem to have a precedent anywhere, but thanks for more of your personal interpretation.
(Edited 24 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 51 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,303
@previous (C)
> Please see: General Welfare Clause
> I thought you said you had read the Constitution?
I have. It appears that you have not.
- The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
We see then, that the phrase "general Welfare" is a qualification of the Congress' power to tax. It authorizes the federal government to nothing more than taxation.
> LOLno Even the Supreme Court doesn't make blanket claims like that, preferring instead to decide constitutionality on a case-by-case basis.
Don't be silly. The Supreme Court isn't in the business of teaching law; it decides, in specific, contested cases, whether a particular case violates the constitution.
> The limitations you mention are certainly not listed specifically anywhere in the constitution and don't seem to have a precedent anywhere, but thanks for more of your personal interpretation.
See the 10th Amendment. Limitations are not listed, rather powers are listed. As those classes of executive orders are not listed by the constitution, they are unconstitutional.
> Please see: General Welfare Clause
> I thought you said you had read the Constitution?
I have. It appears that you have not.
- The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
We see then, that the phrase "general Welfare" is a qualification of the Congress' power to tax. It authorizes the federal government to nothing more than taxation.
> LOLno Even the Supreme Court doesn't make blanket claims like that, preferring instead to decide constitutionality on a case-by-case basis.
Don't be silly. The Supreme Court isn't in the business of teaching law; it decides, in specific, contested cases, whether a particular case violates the constitution.
> The limitations you mention are certainly not listed specifically anywhere in the constitution and don't seem to have a precedent anywhere, but thanks for more of your personal interpretation.
See the 10th Amendment. Limitations are not listed, rather powers are listed. As those classes of executive orders are not listed by the constitution, they are unconstitutional.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,307
@previous (A)
> It authorizes the federal government to nothing more than taxation.
Unfortunately, this is more of your own interpretation. It is hard to imagine how a tax alone might "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare". Spending is implicit.
> See the 10th Amendment. Limitations are not listed, rather powers are listed.
Listed? I see no listing.
> It authorizes the federal government to nothing more than taxation.
Unfortunately, this is more of your own interpretation. It is hard to imagine how a tax alone might "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare". Spending is implicit.
> See the 10th Amendment. Limitations are not listed, rather powers are listed.
Listed? I see no listing.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,310
@previous (C)
> > It authorizes the federal government to nothing more than taxation.
> It is hard to imagine how a tax alone might "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare". Spending is implicit.
Try harder! Taxation provides for the "common Defence and general Welfare" through the other enumerated powers.
> Listed? I see no listing.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8
> > It authorizes the federal government to nothing more than taxation.
> It is hard to imagine how a tax alone might "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare". Spending is implicit.
Try harder! Taxation provides for the "common Defence and general Welfare" through the other enumerated powers.
> Listed? I see no listing.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 29 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,313
@previous (A)
> Taxation provides for the "common Defence and general Welfare" through the other enumerated powers.
LOL Such as?
Let me spell this out for you:
The General Welfare Clause: "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"
You can't pay debts with taxation.
Levying a tax is not defending anything.
The general welfare isn't served by taxing people.
Spending is required to do any of these things.
> > > See the 10th Amendment. Limitations are not listed, rather powers are listed.
> > Listed? I see no listing.
> http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8
LOL That's Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, not the 10th amendment. You're just citing the same thing over and over now?
> Taxation provides for the "common Defence and general Welfare" through the other enumerated powers.
LOL Such as?
Let me spell this out for you:
The General Welfare Clause: "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"
You can't pay debts with taxation.
Levying a tax is not defending anything.
The general welfare isn't served by taxing people.
Spending is required to do any of these things.
> > > See the 10th Amendment. Limitations are not listed, rather powers are listed.
> > Listed? I see no listing.
> http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8
LOL That's Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, not the 10th amendment. You're just citing the same thing over and over now?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 38 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,318
@previous (C)
> LOL Such as?
Such as:
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
> Let me spell this out for you:
> The General Welfare Clause: "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"
> You can't pay debts with taxation.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Congress has the power to pay the debts of the United States.
> Levying a tax is not defending anything.
The ability to provide for the "common Defense" is given by these powers:
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> The general welfare isn't served by taxing people.
The general Welfare is served by all of the succeeding powers. Furthermore, this clause prevents spending on specific welfare (i.e. that of one state).
> Spending is required to do any of these things.
Yes. The areas of congressional spending are delineated in Section 1 Article 8.
> LOL That's Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, not the 10th amendment. You're just citing the same thing over and over now?
The 10th Amendment states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Unless you can show that a power has been delegated to the federal government, it is unconstitutional. You have failed to show constitutional authorization for 8 posts now.
> LOL Such as?
Such as:
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
> Let me spell this out for you:
> The General Welfare Clause: "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"
> You can't pay debts with taxation.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Congress has the power to pay the debts of the United States.
> Levying a tax is not defending anything.
The ability to provide for the "common Defense" is given by these powers:
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> The general welfare isn't served by taxing people.
The general Welfare is served by all of the succeeding powers. Furthermore, this clause prevents spending on specific welfare (i.e. that of one state).
> Spending is required to do any of these things.
Yes. The areas of congressional spending are delineated in Section 1 Article 8.
> LOL That's Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, not the 10th amendment. You're just citing the same thing over and over now?
The 10th Amendment states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Unless you can show that a power has been delegated to the federal government, it is unconstitutional. You have failed to show constitutional authorization for 8 posts now.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 46 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,327
@previous (A)
LOL You've moved from citing the same thing over and over to posting walls of text. You just want to post the whole thing and get it out of your system now?
The point that spending is implicit is pretty easy to understand. You can't raise and support armies or establish post roads through taxation. Taxation doesn't provide for these - spending does. The spending is implicit.
As for the idea that the remaining powers somehow define "general welfare", that seems to be your own construction. Nothing in the language of the Constitution suggests that the remaining powers define the first - only that taxing and spending (within the limitations of common defense and general welfare) is a power of Congress.
I fear we are getting off topic here. Let's recap.
Legislative power resting with Congress - Granted in the constitution
Congressional spending - Granted in the Constitution
Executive orders - Not specifically named in the Constitution but understood to be part of the executive power to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" as granted in Constitution.
The things you mentioned all have a solid basis in precedent and constitutional law. I see nothing unconstitutional about them.
LOL You've moved from citing the same thing over and over to posting walls of text. You just want to post the whole thing and get it out of your system now?
The point that spending is implicit is pretty easy to understand. You can't raise and support armies or establish post roads through taxation. Taxation doesn't provide for these - spending does. The spending is implicit.
As for the idea that the remaining powers somehow define "general welfare", that seems to be your own construction. Nothing in the language of the Constitution suggests that the remaining powers define the first - only that taxing and spending (within the limitations of common defense and general welfare) is a power of Congress.
I fear we are getting off topic here. Let's recap.
Legislative power resting with Congress - Granted in the constitution
Congressional spending - Granted in the Constitution
Executive orders - Not specifically named in the Constitution but understood to be part of the executive power to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" as granted in Constitution.
The things you mentioned all have a solid basis in precedent and constitutional law. I see nothing unconstitutional about them.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 50 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,361
@previous (C)
> LOL You've moved from citing the same thing over and over to posting walls of text. You just want to post the whole thing and get it out of your system now?
You ask me to post the enumerated powers, and then complain when I do.
> The point that spending is implicit is pretty easy to understand. You can't raise and support armies or establish post roads through taxation. Taxation doesn't provide for these - spending does. The spending is implicit.
Yes, for the powers enumerated in Article 1 Section 8.
> As for the idea that the remaining powers somehow define "general welfare", that seems to be your own construction. Nothing in the language of the Constitution suggests that the remaining powers define the first - only that taxing and spending (within the limitations of common defense and general welfare) is a power of Congress.
Taxing and spending within the limits of Article 1 Section 8 is a power of congress. Taxing and spending without the limits of Article 1 Section 8 is not a power of congress.
The congress has the power to pay the debts of the United States i.e. that money spent using its powers granted in Article 1 Section 8. The specific means by which Congress can provide for the common Defence and general Welfare are delineated in Article 1 Section 8.
> I fear we are getting off topic here. Let's recap.
> Legislative power resting with Congress - Granted in the constitution
Congress' legislative power is restricted to those areas listed in Article 1 Section 8.
> Congressional spending - Granted in the Constitution
Congressional spending is governed by legislation, which is restricted to those areas listed in Article 1 Section 8.
> Executive orders - Not specifically named in the Constitution but understood to be part of the executive power to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" as granted in Constitution.
Therefore they must be pursuant of "Laws" passed by Congress, which are restricted to those areas listed in Article 1 Section 8.
> The things you mentioned all have a solid basis in precedent and constitutional law. I see nothing unconstitutional about them.
You have yet to mention Constitutional authority for any of the contested items. Here is an example:
Person A: The Post Office is uncostituional.
Person B: No, the Post Office is constitutional.
Person A: Please show the constitutional authority for the Post Office.
Person B: Article 1 Section 8 "The Congress shall have Power [...] To establish Post Offices and Post Roads"
Person A: It appears I am mistaken. Thank you for correcting me. The Post Office is constitutional.
> LOL You've moved from citing the same thing over and over to posting walls of text. You just want to post the whole thing and get it out of your system now?
You ask me to post the enumerated powers, and then complain when I do.
> The point that spending is implicit is pretty easy to understand. You can't raise and support armies or establish post roads through taxation. Taxation doesn't provide for these - spending does. The spending is implicit.
Yes, for the powers enumerated in Article 1 Section 8.
> As for the idea that the remaining powers somehow define "general welfare", that seems to be your own construction. Nothing in the language of the Constitution suggests that the remaining powers define the first - only that taxing and spending (within the limitations of common defense and general welfare) is a power of Congress.
Taxing and spending within the limits of Article 1 Section 8 is a power of congress. Taxing and spending without the limits of Article 1 Section 8 is not a power of congress.
The congress has the power to pay the debts of the United States i.e. that money spent using its powers granted in Article 1 Section 8. The specific means by which Congress can provide for the common Defence and general Welfare are delineated in Article 1 Section 8.
> I fear we are getting off topic here. Let's recap.
> Legislative power resting with Congress - Granted in the constitution
Congress' legislative power is restricted to those areas listed in Article 1 Section 8.
> Congressional spending - Granted in the Constitution
Congressional spending is governed by legislation, which is restricted to those areas listed in Article 1 Section 8.
> Executive orders - Not specifically named in the Constitution but understood to be part of the executive power to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" as granted in Constitution.
Therefore they must be pursuant of "Laws" passed by Congress, which are restricted to those areas listed in Article 1 Section 8.
> The things you mentioned all have a solid basis in precedent and constitutional law. I see nothing unconstitutional about them.
You have yet to mention Constitutional authority for any of the contested items. Here is an example:
Person A: The Post Office is uncostituional.
Person B: No, the Post Office is constitutional.
Person A: Please show the constitutional authority for the Post Office.
Person B: Article 1 Section 8 "The Congress shall have Power [...] To establish Post Offices and Post Roads"
Person A: It appears I am mistaken. Thank you for correcting me. The Post Office is constitutional.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,362
This os difficult to follow, I can't tell which one of you is mountainman.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 39 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,369
@246,361 (A)
> Congress' legislative power is restricted to those areas listed in Article 1 Section 8.
...which grants Congress the power to tax and spend for repayment of debts, the common defense, and general welfare. It's right there in the first sentence.
Anon A: The President signing the Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act and issuing an executive order to repeal Bush era restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is unconstitutional.
Anon C: No, those are both constitutional.
Anon A: Please show the constitutional authority for these.
Anon C: Article 1, Section 7 details how Congress would pass such a bill into law; Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress the power tax and spend; and executive orders are recognized as part of the executive responsibilities detailed in Article 2, Section 1.
Anon A: You're trolling! 10th Amendment! You have yet to show any constitutional authority for this. *citation* *the same citation* *the same citation again* *wall o' text*
> Congress' legislative power is restricted to those areas listed in Article 1 Section 8.
...which grants Congress the power to tax and spend for repayment of debts, the common defense, and general welfare. It's right there in the first sentence.
Anon A: The President signing the Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act and issuing an executive order to repeal Bush era restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is unconstitutional.
Anon C: No, those are both constitutional.
Anon A: Please show the constitutional authority for these.
Anon C: Article 1, Section 7 details how Congress would pass such a bill into law; Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress the power tax and spend; and executive orders are recognized as part of the executive responsibilities detailed in Article 2, Section 1.
Anon A: You're trolling! 10th Amendment! You have yet to show any constitutional authority for this. *citation* *the same citation* *the same citation again* *wall o' text*
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,373
@previous (C)
> > Congress' legislative power is restricted to those areas listed in Article 1 Section 8.
> ...which grants Congress the power to tax and spend for repayment of debts, the common defense, and general welfare. It's right there in the first sentence.
The repayment of debts as incurred under the powers granted congress by Article 1 Section 8. Taxes will provide funds which will provide for the common Defence and general Welfare. No powers to legislate on either defence or welfare are granted herein; rather they are provided in the following clauses.
That is the basic answer of a literal reading of the text. The logical answer is that, if, hypothetically, a constitution existed similar in all respects save that the first clause actually gave Congress the power to legislate for the common Defence and general Welfare, every other clause in Article 1 Section 8 would be redundant, as Congress would already have those powers.
> Anon A: The President signing the Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act and issuing an executive order to repeal Bush era restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is unconstitutional.
> Anon C: No, those are both constitutional.
> Anon A: Please show the constitutional authority for these.
> Anon C: Article 1, Section 7 details how Congress would pass such a bill into law; Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress the power tax and spend; and executive orders are recognized as part of the executive responsibilities detailed in Article 2, Section 1.
This is where your argument fails. Article 1 Section 8 gives the Congress the power to tax and spend for several specific purposes - health insurance and stem-cell research are not among them. Executive orders can only apply to government departments, as they are the executors of the law.
> Anon A: You're trolling! 10th Amendment! You have yet to show any constitutional authority for this. *citation* *the same citation* *the same citation again* *wall o' text*
I find it more difficult, and more disconcerting to believe that you are not trolling.
> > Congress' legislative power is restricted to those areas listed in Article 1 Section 8.
> ...which grants Congress the power to tax and spend for repayment of debts, the common defense, and general welfare. It's right there in the first sentence.
The repayment of debts as incurred under the powers granted congress by Article 1 Section 8. Taxes will provide funds which will provide for the common Defence and general Welfare. No powers to legislate on either defence or welfare are granted herein; rather they are provided in the following clauses.
That is the basic answer of a literal reading of the text. The logical answer is that, if, hypothetically, a constitution existed similar in all respects save that the first clause actually gave Congress the power to legislate for the common Defence and general Welfare, every other clause in Article 1 Section 8 would be redundant, as Congress would already have those powers.
> Anon A: The President signing the Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act and issuing an executive order to repeal Bush era restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is unconstitutional.
> Anon C: No, those are both constitutional.
> Anon A: Please show the constitutional authority for these.
> Anon C: Article 1, Section 7 details how Congress would pass such a bill into law; Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress the power tax and spend; and executive orders are recognized as part of the executive responsibilities detailed in Article 2, Section 1.
This is where your argument fails. Article 1 Section 8 gives the Congress the power to tax and spend for several specific purposes - health insurance and stem-cell research are not among them. Executive orders can only apply to government departments, as they are the executors of the law.
> Anon A: You're trolling! 10th Amendment! You have yet to show any constitutional authority for this. *citation* *the same citation* *the same citation again* *wall o' text*
I find it more difficult, and more disconcerting to believe that you are not trolling.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,374
Seriously, I need to know which one of you fuckers is mountainman. I don't know who's wrong in this argument.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,377
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,378
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 21 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,381
@246,373 (A)
Health and health related research easily fall into general welfare.
> Executive orders can only apply to government departments, as they are the executors of the law.
Historically, this has not been the case. Where are you getting these restrictions you keep dreaming up?
> I find it more difficult, and more disconcerting to believe that you are not trolling.
I'm just trying to be reasonable. Declaring things to be unconstitutional is your schtick, remember?
@246,377 (A)
LOL seems legit
Health and health related research easily fall into general welfare.
> Executive orders can only apply to government departments, as they are the executors of the law.
Historically, this has not been the case. Where are you getting these restrictions you keep dreaming up?
> I find it more difficult, and more disconcerting to believe that you are not trolling.
I'm just trying to be reasonable. Declaring things to be unconstitutional is your schtick, remember?
@246,377 (A)
LOL seems legit
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,385
@previous (C)
> Health and health related research easily fall into general welfare.
General welfare is not a power, but a qualification of the power of taxation.
> Historically, this has not been the case. Where are you getting these restrictions you keep dreaming up?
From the constitution. One should not argue what ought to be from what it.
> I'm just trying to be reasonable. Declaring things to be unconstitutional is your schtick, remember?
You have been most unreasonable in your perverse renderings of the constitution. If acknowledging unconstitutional spending to be unconstitutional is schtick, I welcome the label.
> Health and health related research easily fall into general welfare.
General welfare is not a power, but a qualification of the power of taxation.
> Historically, this has not been the case. Where are you getting these restrictions you keep dreaming up?
From the constitution. One should not argue what ought to be from what it.
> I'm just trying to be reasonable. Declaring things to be unconstitutional is your schtick, remember?
You have been most unreasonable in your perverse renderings of the constitution. If acknowledging unconstitutional spending to be unconstitutional is schtick, I welcome the label.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,389
@previous (A)
General welfare is a qualification for taxing and spending. Health and health related research easily fall into general welfare.
> From the constitution.
The constitution doesn't specifically mention the executive order, let alone the limitation you mention. Furthermore, I fail to see how this would apply at all to anything we are talking about.
> One should not argue what ought to be from what it.
Um.... Okay.
General welfare is a qualification for taxing and spending. Health and health related research easily fall into general welfare.
> From the constitution.
The constitution doesn't specifically mention the executive order, let alone the limitation you mention. Furthermore, I fail to see how this would apply at all to anything we are talking about.
> One should not argue what ought to be from what it.
Um.... Okay.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,393
@previous (C)
> General welfare is a qualification for taxing and spending. Health and health related research easily fall into general welfare.
A qualification for taxing and spending, but not an authority to spend. General welfare qualifies the powers granted to congress in Article 1 Section 8. Health and Welfare may be considered general welfare but they are not authorized by the constitution, and are therefore unconstitutional.
> The constitution doesn't specifically mention the executive order, let alone the limitation you mention. Furthermore, I fail to see how this would apply at all to anything we are talking about.
You are the one who brought up executive orders. You must feel that it is necessary for executive to exceed their constitutional limits for some policy to be brought about. Once again. the constitution authorizes actions government powers. Powers outside these authorized powers are unconstitutional. If there is no clause authorizing executive orders over individual citizens, or executive orders not concerned with the faithful execution of the laws then such behavior is unconstitutional.
One should not argue what ought to be from what is.
> It is generally interpreted this way; therefore it should be interpreted this way.
> General welfare is a qualification for taxing and spending. Health and health related research easily fall into general welfare.
A qualification for taxing and spending, but not an authority to spend. General welfare qualifies the powers granted to congress in Article 1 Section 8. Health and Welfare may be considered general welfare but they are not authorized by the constitution, and are therefore unconstitutional.
> The constitution doesn't specifically mention the executive order, let alone the limitation you mention. Furthermore, I fail to see how this would apply at all to anything we are talking about.
You are the one who brought up executive orders. You must feel that it is necessary for executive to exceed their constitutional limits for some policy to be brought about. Once again. the constitution authorizes actions government powers. Powers outside these authorized powers are unconstitutional. If there is no clause authorizing executive orders over individual citizens, or executive orders not concerned with the faithful execution of the laws then such behavior is unconstitutional.
One should not argue what ought to be from what is.
> It is generally interpreted this way; therefore it should be interpreted this way.
(Edited 53 seconds later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 19 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,399
@previous (A)
> A qualification for taxing and spending, but not an authority to spend.
Yes, it is an authority to spend. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 grants Congress the power to tax and spend for the general welfare and common defense.
> You must feel that it is necessary for executive to exceed their constitutional limits for some policy to be brought about.
Constitutional policy is for the executive to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". No limitations are specifically named, yet you keep coming up with limitations you say come from the Constitution. Maybe you could articulate what you think is unconstitutional about Obama's executive order to repeal Bush era restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research?
> It is generally interpreted this way; therefore it should be interpreted this way.
Yes, historical precedent and past judicial decisions generally guide future interpretation. Just making up your own interpretation and declaring it to be so doesn't make it so.
> A qualification for taxing and spending, but not an authority to spend.
Yes, it is an authority to spend. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 grants Congress the power to tax and spend for the general welfare and common defense.
> You must feel that it is necessary for executive to exceed their constitutional limits for some policy to be brought about.
Constitutional policy is for the executive to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". No limitations are specifically named, yet you keep coming up with limitations you say come from the Constitution. Maybe you could articulate what you think is unconstitutional about Obama's executive order to repeal Bush era restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research?
> It is generally interpreted this way; therefore it should be interpreted this way.
Yes, historical precedent and past judicial decisions generally guide future interpretation. Just making up your own interpretation and declaring it to be so doesn't make it so.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,425
Herman Cain is outpolling Ron Paul.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 37 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,436
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 7 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,722
@246,399 (C)
> Yes, it is an authority to spend. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 grants Congress the power to tax and spend for the general welfare and common defense.
Spending is limited to the following areas to areas specifically enumerated in Article 1 Section 8. "General welfare and common defense" qualifies the taxation ability - Congress does not have the power to tax for specific welfare or defense.
> Constitutional policy is for the executive to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". No limitations are specifically named, yet you keep coming up with limitations you say come from the Constitution. Maybe you could articulate what you think is unconstitutional about Obama's executive order to repeal Bush era restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research?
The limititation is the lack of specific authorization. The executive does not have legislative power, he can merely direct the government to follow the Laws passed by congress.
> Yes, historical precedent and past judicial decisions generally guide future interpretation. Just making up your own interpretation and declaring it to be so doesn't make it so.
You feel free to justify your error based upon tradition and culture; I will reach truth through reason and logic.
> Yes, it is an authority to spend. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 grants Congress the power to tax and spend for the general welfare and common defense.
Spending is limited to the following areas to areas specifically enumerated in Article 1 Section 8. "General welfare and common defense" qualifies the taxation ability - Congress does not have the power to tax for specific welfare or defense.
> Constitutional policy is for the executive to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". No limitations are specifically named, yet you keep coming up with limitations you say come from the Constitution. Maybe you could articulate what you think is unconstitutional about Obama's executive order to repeal Bush era restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research?
The limititation is the lack of specific authorization. The executive does not have legislative power, he can merely direct the government to follow the Laws passed by congress.
> Yes, historical precedent and past judicial decisions generally guide future interpretation. Just making up your own interpretation and declaring it to be so doesn't make it so.
You feel free to justify your error based upon tradition and culture; I will reach truth through reason and logic.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 19 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,724
@previous (A)
> "General welfare and common defense" qualifies the taxation ability
No, spending is implicit. We have been over this.
> The limititation is the lack of specific authorization.
The specific authorization is for the executive to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". Maybe you could articulate what you think is unconstitutional about Obama's executive order to repeal Bush era restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research?
> "General welfare and common defense" qualifies the taxation ability
No, spending is implicit. We have been over this.
> The limititation is the lack of specific authorization.
The specific authorization is for the executive to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". Maybe you could articulate what you think is unconstitutional about Obama's executive order to repeal Bush era restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research?
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,726
. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 57 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,727
@245,685 (A)
taking a tiny percentage of money and using it to help insure children in the responsibility to uphold the right to life? UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!
oh wait
we have a right to LIVE
dumpass
taking a tiny percentage of money and using it to help insure children in the responsibility to uphold the right to life? UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!
oh wait
we have a right to LIVE
dumpass
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 23 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,749
. replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,755
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 19 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,774
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,808
@246,724 (C)
> No, spending is implicit. We have been over this.
No, spending is authorized by the powers enumerated in Article 1 Section 8. The only spending authorized by Clause 1 is spending to collect taxes. This is further qualified by the stipulations that taxes can only be raised if it is for the common defence or general welfare.
> The specific authorization is for the executive to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". Maybe you could articulate what you think is unconstitutional about Obama's executive order to repeal Bush era restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research?
I never claimed that it was. In fact, I have no specific knowledge about this executive order, or what it repealed. Ultimately, restrictions on stem cell research spending are redundant, as such spending is not authorized by the constitution.
> No, spending is implicit. We have been over this.
No, spending is authorized by the powers enumerated in Article 1 Section 8. The only spending authorized by Clause 1 is spending to collect taxes. This is further qualified by the stipulations that taxes can only be raised if it is for the common defence or general welfare.
> The specific authorization is for the executive to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". Maybe you could articulate what you think is unconstitutional about Obama's executive order to repeal Bush era restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research?
I never claimed that it was. In fact, I have no specific knowledge about this executive order, or what it repealed. Ultimately, restrictions on stem cell research spending are redundant, as such spending is not authorized by the constitution.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,810
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 15 years ago, 29 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,811
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 27 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,841
> The only spending authorized by Clause 1 is spending to collect taxes.
Wrong. The first clause specifically mentions paying debts. The power to spend is implied here. Taxing and spending to provide for the general welfare and common defense is a power granted to Congress. Again, there is nothing in the language of the Constitution that would indicate that the other enumerated powers somehow define the first.
> > Maybe you could articulate what you think is unconstitutional about Obama's executive order to repeal Bush era restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research?
> I never claimed that it was.
Yes, you did so here @245,685 (A). Are you playing dumb now?
Wrong. The first clause specifically mentions paying debts. The power to spend is implied here. Taxing and spending to provide for the general welfare and common defense is a power granted to Congress. Again, there is nothing in the language of the Constitution that would indicate that the other enumerated powers somehow define the first.
> > Maybe you could articulate what you think is unconstitutional about Obama's executive order to repeal Bush era restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research?
> I never claimed that it was.
Yes, you did so here @245,685 (A). Are you playing dumb now?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,863
@previous (C)
> Wrong. The first clause specifically mentions paying debts. The power to spend is implied here.
You contradict yourself. The power to pay debts is specifically authorized, not implied. The power to spend on whatever is deemed to be for the common defence and/or the general welfare is not authorized. Rather, the power to tax for such purposes is authorized. Powers by which the common defence and general welfare may be provided for are authorized in the following clauses.
> Taxing and spending to provide for the general welfare and common defense is a power granted to Congress.
As seen above, this is simply not true.
> Again, there is nothing in the language of the Constitution that would indicate that the other enumerated powers somehow define the first.
The following powers enable spending for the common defence and general welfare, which the first clause does not enable. It enables taxation for those purposes.
> Yes, you did so here @245,685 (A). Are you playing dumb now?
You are correct. I did not mean to say that the executive order was unconstitutional, merely that federal funding for stem cell research is unconstitutional.
> Wrong. The first clause specifically mentions paying debts. The power to spend is implied here.
You contradict yourself. The power to pay debts is specifically authorized, not implied. The power to spend on whatever is deemed to be for the common defence and/or the general welfare is not authorized. Rather, the power to tax for such purposes is authorized. Powers by which the common defence and general welfare may be provided for are authorized in the following clauses.
> Taxing and spending to provide for the general welfare and common defense is a power granted to Congress.
As seen above, this is simply not true.
> Again, there is nothing in the language of the Constitution that would indicate that the other enumerated powers somehow define the first.
The following powers enable spending for the common defence and general welfare, which the first clause does not enable. It enables taxation for those purposes.
> Yes, you did so here @245,685 (A). Are you playing dumb now?
You are correct. I did not mean to say that the executive order was unconstitutional, merely that federal funding for stem cell research is unconstitutional.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 31 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,890
@previous (A)
> You contradict yourself. The power to pay debts is specifically authorized, not implied.
No I don't. The power to pay debts is specifically authorized. I said that spending is implied.
> Powers by which the common defence and general welfare may be provided for are authorized in the following clauses.
There is no language in the Constitution that claims that the following clauses define those terms nor is this the generally accepted interpretation of this clause.
You may have noticed that this act that you claim is unconstitutional slipped by Congress and was signed by the President. 2009 flew by without judges, constitutional scholars, or anyone involved voicing a serious challenge to any of this, as funding health measures and health-related research is nothing new. You realize that your claims rest on nothing more than your own oddball interpretation here?
> You contradict yourself. The power to pay debts is specifically authorized, not implied.
No I don't. The power to pay debts is specifically authorized. I said that spending is implied.
> Powers by which the common defence and general welfare may be provided for are authorized in the following clauses.
There is no language in the Constitution that claims that the following clauses define those terms nor is this the generally accepted interpretation of this clause.
You may have noticed that this act that you claim is unconstitutional slipped by Congress and was signed by the President. 2009 flew by without judges, constitutional scholars, or anyone involved voicing a serious challenge to any of this, as funding health measures and health-related research is nothing new. You realize that your claims rest on nothing more than your own oddball interpretation here?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 53 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,912
@previous (C)
> No I don't. The power to pay debts is specifically authorized. I said that spending is implied.
Paying = spending. There is no implication. Clause 1 does not authorize payment or spending on common defence or general welfare. There is no implication. Clause 1 authorizes taxation to obtain funds. These funds can be spent in the ways authorized in Article 1 Section 1.
> There is no language in the Constitution that claims that the following clauses define those terms nor is this the generally accepted interpretation of this clause.
Evolution is not generally accepted as true in the United States. You might want to stop these appeals to popular authority. The constitution does not claim, it states. It does not state that congress may spend for the common defence or general welfare.
> You may have noticed that this act that you claim is unconstitutional slipped by Congress and was signed by the President. 2009 flew by without judges, constitutional scholars, or anyone involved voicing a serious challenge to any of this, as funding health measures and health-related research is nothing new.
This is the worst argument you have made yet. "Most people don't believe it's true, therefore it's not."
> You realize that your claims rest on nothing more than your own oddball interpretation here?
My claim rests on nothing more than a literal reading of the constitution. Your claim requires unwritten and unnecessary yet somehow implied powers which would make most of the constitution redundant, and the people who wrote it and adopted it fools, for it would go against their stated intentions in drafting it.
> No I don't. The power to pay debts is specifically authorized. I said that spending is implied.
Paying = spending. There is no implication. Clause 1 does not authorize payment or spending on common defence or general welfare. There is no implication. Clause 1 authorizes taxation to obtain funds. These funds can be spent in the ways authorized in Article 1 Section 1.
> There is no language in the Constitution that claims that the following clauses define those terms nor is this the generally accepted interpretation of this clause.
Evolution is not generally accepted as true in the United States. You might want to stop these appeals to popular authority. The constitution does not claim, it states. It does not state that congress may spend for the common defence or general welfare.
> You may have noticed that this act that you claim is unconstitutional slipped by Congress and was signed by the President. 2009 flew by without judges, constitutional scholars, or anyone involved voicing a serious challenge to any of this, as funding health measures and health-related research is nothing new.
This is the worst argument you have made yet. "Most people don't believe it's true, therefore it's not."
> You realize that your claims rest on nothing more than your own oddball interpretation here?
My claim rests on nothing more than a literal reading of the constitution. Your claim requires unwritten and unnecessary yet somehow implied powers which would make most of the constitution redundant, and the people who wrote it and adopted it fools, for it would go against their stated intentions in drafting it.
Erad67 replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,915
@246,890 (C)
> You may have noticed that this act that you claim is unconstitutional slipped by Congress and was signed by the President. 2009 flew by without judges, constitutional scholars, or anyone involved voicing a serious challenge to any of this, as funding health measures and health-related research is nothing new. You realize that your claims rest on nothing more than your own oddball interpretation here?
If you read the Constitution you will notice that it is YOUR (mis)interpretation of the Constitution and the vast majority of those in Congress that is "oddball". The fact that the overwhelming majority of laws for decades have been unconstitutional doesn't mean what is said in the Constitution has magically changed meaning! The document is pretty straight forward, and if you have questions about the intended meaning of various parts or phrases the guys who made the Constitution left a large amount of writings that leave no question as to their meaning.
If the people in your state want some sort of insurance program for children, then by all means pass such legislation at the state level. Just because we think the Federal program is unconstitutional doesn't mean you can't have it in your state. The states (and the people) have powers not outlined in the Constitution.
> You may have noticed that this act that you claim is unconstitutional slipped by Congress and was signed by the President. 2009 flew by without judges, constitutional scholars, or anyone involved voicing a serious challenge to any of this, as funding health measures and health-related research is nothing new. You realize that your claims rest on nothing more than your own oddball interpretation here?
If you read the Constitution you will notice that it is YOUR (mis)interpretation of the Constitution and the vast majority of those in Congress that is "oddball". The fact that the overwhelming majority of laws for decades have been unconstitutional doesn't mean what is said in the Constitution has magically changed meaning! The document is pretty straight forward, and if you have questions about the intended meaning of various parts or phrases the guys who made the Constitution left a large amount of writings that leave no question as to their meaning.
If the people in your state want some sort of insurance program for children, then by all means pass such legislation at the state level. Just because we think the Federal program is unconstitutional doesn't mean you can't have it in your state. The states (and the people) have powers not outlined in the Constitution.
sluggy joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,916
@246,890 (C)
You are wasting your time. He doesn't know what he is talking about. He has to rely on incorrect things he has read, then try to apply them to information he has googled. If it doesn't fit his already held belief, you can't convert him.
You are wasting your time. He doesn't know what he is talking about. He has to rely on incorrect things he has read, then try to apply them to information he has googled. If it doesn't fit his already held belief, you can't convert him.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,920
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,924
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,927
@previous (A)
You are wrong because you are wrong.
I don't know shit about the constitution except that after I wipe my ass with it, I'm gonna set it on fire.
You are wrong because you are wrong.
I don't know shit about the constitution except that after I wipe my ass with it, I'm gonna set it on fire.
Erad67 replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,932
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 19 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,934
@246,927 (sluggy)
> You are wrong because you are wrong.
I was actually going to use this as an attempt to troll you but you said it voluntarily. I don't know how I could make you look any sillier than you have made your self look.
> You are wrong because you are wrong.
I was actually going to use this as an attempt to troll you but you said it voluntarily. I don't know how I could make you look any sillier than you have made your self look.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 53 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,954
@246,912 (A)
> Your claim requires unwritten and unnecessary yet somehow implied powers...
Congressional appropriation is necessary to carry out the powers granted. There is no way to argue that spending isn't necessary or that any argument claiming it is implied somehow relies upon "unwritten and unnecessary" powers - it is necessary.
My claim rests on the standing interpretation as expressed in US vs. Butler:
The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States.
> This is the worst argument you have made yet. "Most people don't believe it's true, therefore it's not."
It's not that I'm saying "most people don't believe it's true, therefore it's not". I'm saying knowledgeable people who have been constitutionally appointed to make such determinations and those elected to carry out the the tasks of government don't agree with you. Not a single branch of government agrees with your interpretation -- not Congress who passed the bill in question, or the President who signed it, or the Court whose above ruling is the standing interpretation. While you are welcome to interpret the Constitution to read however you like, your own personal interpretation does not make for much of a case.
If want to go down the same road as @246,915 (Erad67) and claim that "the overwhelming majority of laws for decades have been unconstitutional", that is fine. Just don't go casually swinging such claims around as fact and know that few outside of the lunatic fringe are likely to take claims like this seriously.
> Your claim requires unwritten and unnecessary yet somehow implied powers...
Congressional appropriation is necessary to carry out the powers granted. There is no way to argue that spending isn't necessary or that any argument claiming it is implied somehow relies upon "unwritten and unnecessary" powers - it is necessary.
My claim rests on the standing interpretation as expressed in US vs. Butler:
The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States.
> This is the worst argument you have made yet. "Most people don't believe it's true, therefore it's not."
It's not that I'm saying "most people don't believe it's true, therefore it's not". I'm saying knowledgeable people who have been constitutionally appointed to make such determinations and those elected to carry out the the tasks of government don't agree with you. Not a single branch of government agrees with your interpretation -- not Congress who passed the bill in question, or the President who signed it, or the Court whose above ruling is the standing interpretation. While you are welcome to interpret the Constitution to read however you like, your own personal interpretation does not make for much of a case.
If want to go down the same road as @246,915 (Erad67) and claim that "the overwhelming majority of laws for decades have been unconstitutional", that is fine. Just don't go casually swinging such claims around as fact and know that few outside of the lunatic fringe are likely to take claims like this seriously.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,958
@previous (C)
> Congressional appropriation is necessary to carry out the powers granted.
And for this reason is was explicitly authorized in the constitution.
> There is no way to argue that spending isn't necessary or that any argument claiming it is implied somehow relies upon "unwritten and unnecessary" powers - it is necessary.
SPending is necessary, which is why is it specifically and individually authorized by the constitution.
> My claim rests on the standing interpretation as expressed in US vs. Butler:
> The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States.
Yes, Congress has the power to tax and appropriate for the common defence and general welfare, but it does not have the power to spend on them, except where they have specifically authorized by Section 1 Article 8.
To quote Justice McReynolds "[It] is not a substantive general power to provide for the welfare of the United States, but is a limitation on the grant of power to raise money by taxes, duties, and imposts. If it were otherwise, all the rest of the Constitution, consisting of carefully enumerated and cautiously guarded grants of specific powers, would have been useless, if not delusive.
> It's not that I'm saying "most people don't believe it's true, therefore it's not". I'm saying knowledgeable people who have been constitutionally appointed to make such determinations and those elected to carry out the the tasks of government don't agree with you. Not a single branch of government agrees with your interpretation -- not Congress who passed the bill in question, or the President who signed it, or the Court whose above ruling is the standing interpretation. While you are welcome to interpret the Constitution to read however you like, your own personal interpretation does not make for much of a case.
Are you being serious or trolling here? Imagine if, say, science worked this way. Someone makes a new discovery, and presents a reasoned presentation of his findings, showing evidence and workings. You reply "Currently, no else believes this. Your personal interpretation of the evidence does not make for much of a case." You refuse to actually deal with the objetive evidence - the text of the constitution, and consistently appeal to the fact that others believe differently. Your appeals to tradition in the face of reason are astounding to find outside of seminaries and sunday schools.
> If want to go down the same road as @246,915 (Erad67) and claim that "the overwhelming majority of laws for decades have been unconstitutional", that is fine. Just don't go casually swinging such claims around as fact and know that few outside of the lunatic fringe are likely to take claims like this seriously.
Nice. Disagree with me and you're a "lunatic". You're slipping.
> Congressional appropriation is necessary to carry out the powers granted.
And for this reason is was explicitly authorized in the constitution.
> There is no way to argue that spending isn't necessary or that any argument claiming it is implied somehow relies upon "unwritten and unnecessary" powers - it is necessary.
SPending is necessary, which is why is it specifically and individually authorized by the constitution.
> My claim rests on the standing interpretation as expressed in US vs. Butler:
> The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States.
Yes, Congress has the power to tax and appropriate for the common defence and general welfare, but it does not have the power to spend on them, except where they have specifically authorized by Section 1 Article 8.
To quote Justice McReynolds "[It] is not a substantive general power to provide for the welfare of the United States, but is a limitation on the grant of power to raise money by taxes, duties, and imposts. If it were otherwise, all the rest of the Constitution, consisting of carefully enumerated and cautiously guarded grants of specific powers, would have been useless, if not delusive.
> It's not that I'm saying "most people don't believe it's true, therefore it's not". I'm saying knowledgeable people who have been constitutionally appointed to make such determinations and those elected to carry out the the tasks of government don't agree with you. Not a single branch of government agrees with your interpretation -- not Congress who passed the bill in question, or the President who signed it, or the Court whose above ruling is the standing interpretation. While you are welcome to interpret the Constitution to read however you like, your own personal interpretation does not make for much of a case.
Are you being serious or trolling here? Imagine if, say, science worked this way. Someone makes a new discovery, and presents a reasoned presentation of his findings, showing evidence and workings. You reply "Currently, no else believes this. Your personal interpretation of the evidence does not make for much of a case." You refuse to actually deal with the objetive evidence - the text of the constitution, and consistently appeal to the fact that others believe differently. Your appeals to tradition in the face of reason are astounding to find outside of seminaries and sunday schools.
> If want to go down the same road as @246,915 (Erad67) and claim that "the overwhelming majority of laws for decades have been unconstitutional", that is fine. Just don't go casually swinging such claims around as fact and know that few outside of the lunatic fringe are likely to take claims like this seriously.
Nice. Disagree with me and you're a "lunatic". You're slipping.
. replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,960
@246,810 (A)
The right to live may be infringed due to the injuries/diseases inflicted by other people.
The right to live may be infringed due to the injuries/diseases inflicted by other people.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 21 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,963
@246,958 (A)
> To quote Justice McReynolds...
You are quoting from a dissent he wrote to another case entirely. You really had to dig to come up with something misleading to say, eh?
> Imagine if, say, science worked this way. Someone makes a new discovery,
This isn't science, and you haven't made a new discovery. This is a country deciding how to govern itself, and this issue has been debated back and forth. The current conclusion they have come to is not one that supports your claim. Your "evidence" in this matter is not supported by anything but your own dogmatic assertions that you are right.
> Your appeals to tradition in the face of reason are astounding to find outside of seminaries and Sunday schools.
I'm sorry if you are not familiar with the role precedent and previous decision play in legal and judicial matters.
> To quote Justice McReynolds...
You are quoting from a dissent he wrote to another case entirely. You really had to dig to come up with something misleading to say, eh?
> Imagine if, say, science worked this way. Someone makes a new discovery,
This isn't science, and you haven't made a new discovery. This is a country deciding how to govern itself, and this issue has been debated back and forth. The current conclusion they have come to is not one that supports your claim. Your "evidence" in this matter is not supported by anything but your own dogmatic assertions that you are right.
> Your appeals to tradition in the face of reason are astounding to find outside of seminaries and Sunday schools.
I'm sorry if you are not familiar with the role precedent and previous decision play in legal and judicial matters.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 25 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,966
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,967
@246,963 (C)
> You are quoting from a dissent he wrote to another case entirely. You really had to dig to come up with something misleading to say, eh?
Are we discussing a particular case, or are we discussing the constitution?
> This isn't science, and you haven't made a new discovery. This is a country deciding how to govern itself, and this issue has been debated back and forth. The current conclusion they have come to is not one that supports your claim. Your "evidence" in this matter is not supported by anything but your own dogmatic assertions that you are right.
This is political science. The "current conclusion" does not support any claim; evidence supports claims. The evidence is the text of the constitution.
> I'm sorry if you are not familiar with the role precedent and previous decision play in legal and judicial matters.
Disputing importance of tradition ≠ignorance of tradition
> You are quoting from a dissent he wrote to another case entirely. You really had to dig to come up with something misleading to say, eh?
Are we discussing a particular case, or are we discussing the constitution?
> This isn't science, and you haven't made a new discovery. This is a country deciding how to govern itself, and this issue has been debated back and forth. The current conclusion they have come to is not one that supports your claim. Your "evidence" in this matter is not supported by anything but your own dogmatic assertions that you are right.
This is political science. The "current conclusion" does not support any claim; evidence supports claims. The evidence is the text of the constitution.
> I'm sorry if you are not familiar with the role precedent and previous decision play in legal and judicial matters.
Disputing importance of tradition ≠ignorance of tradition
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 33 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,972
@previous (A)
> The "current conclusion" does not support any claim
Yes, it does. It supports the claim that:
The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States.
...which follows from a reading of the text of the Constitution.
> Disputing importance of tradition ≠ignorance of tradition
I'm sorry you chose not to recognize the importance that precedent and previous decision play in deciding legal and judicial matters.
> The "current conclusion" does not support any claim
Yes, it does. It supports the claim that:
The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States.
...which follows from a reading of the text of the Constitution.
> Disputing importance of tradition ≠ignorance of tradition
I'm sorry you chose not to recognize the importance that precedent and previous decision play in deciding legal and judicial matters.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #246,998
@previous (C)
> Yes, it does. It supports the claim that:
> The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States.
> ...which follows from a reading of the text of the Constitution.
A conclusion can't support a conclusion. Evidence supports a conclusion.
> I'm sorry you chose not to recognize the importance that precedent and previous decision play in deciding legal and judicial matters.
I'm sorry that you exalt tradition over reason.
> Yes, it does. It supports the claim that:
> The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States.
> ...which follows from a reading of the text of the Constitution.
A conclusion can't support a conclusion. Evidence supports a conclusion.
> I'm sorry you chose not to recognize the importance that precedent and previous decision play in deciding legal and judicial matters.
I'm sorry that you exalt tradition over reason.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #247,006
@previous (A)
> A conclusion can't support a conclusion.
Pointless doubletalk. No one claimed this. The current conclusion is the stated claim, drawn from the text of the Constitution.
The bulk of your claim boils down to: "I don't care what historical precedent, Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, or anyone else in a position to make the determination says. My interpretation of the Constitution is the only one that is right."
> A conclusion can't support a conclusion.
Pointless doubletalk. No one claimed this. The current conclusion is the stated claim, drawn from the text of the Constitution.
The bulk of your claim boils down to: "I don't care what historical precedent, Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, or anyone else in a position to make the determination says. My interpretation of the Constitution is the only one that is right."
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #247,072
@previous (C)
> Pointless doubletalk. No one claimed this. The current conclusion is the stated claim, drawn from the text of the Constitution.
You attempted to argue that one conclusion can disprove another conclusion. THAT is pointless doubletalk. I am clarifying terms. Your conclusion is not based upon the text of the constitution, as I have shown.
> The bulk of your claim boils down to: "I don't care what historical precedent, Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, or anyone else in a position to make the determination says. My interpretation of the Constitution is the only one that is right."
Yes! My argument is based upon evidence and reason; yours is based upon tradition.
> Pointless doubletalk. No one claimed this. The current conclusion is the stated claim, drawn from the text of the Constitution.
You attempted to argue that one conclusion can disprove another conclusion. THAT is pointless doubletalk. I am clarifying terms. Your conclusion is not based upon the text of the constitution, as I have shown.
> The bulk of your claim boils down to: "I don't care what historical precedent, Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, or anyone else in a position to make the determination says. My interpretation of the Constitution is the only one that is right."
Yes! My argument is based upon evidence and reason; yours is based upon tradition.
. replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #247,189
@246,966 (A)
What, are people going to sue the sick for being sick near them? Do you not realize that the right to free healthcare is an important part of the defense against the war on health?
What, are people going to sue the sick for being sick near them? Do you not realize that the right to free healthcare is an important part of the defense against the war on health?
Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #247,198
> 2011 > responding to Mountaintard
I seriously hope you guys aren't still doing this.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #247,266
@247,189 (.)
> What, are people going to sue the sick for being sick near them?
In certain cases this will happen directly. In other cases health insurance will require sick people to stay at home &c.
> Do you not realize that the right to free healthcare is an important part of the defense against the war on health?
> war on health
loltroll
> What, are people going to sue the sick for being sick near them?
In certain cases this will happen directly. In other cases health insurance will require sick people to stay at home &c.
> Do you not realize that the right to free healthcare is an important part of the defense against the war on health?
> war on health
loltroll
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #247,270
@247,198 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
> > 2011
>
> > responding to Mountaintard
>
> I seriously hope you guys aren't still doing this.
Ks on every subject:
Shit! I'm as uneducated as fuck! I better call the other guy a troll, so this doesn't get shown up! Anyway, I'm much too busy taking angry mirror shots to impress young girls on myspace!
> > 2011
>
> > responding to Mountaintard
>
> I seriously hope you guys aren't still doing this.
Ks on every subject:
Shit! I'm as uneducated as fuck! I better call the other guy a troll, so this doesn't get shown up! Anyway, I'm much too busy taking angry mirror shots to impress young girls on myspace!
Walter Calton !0VegJ9Jl.Q replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #247,290
@247,266 (A)
> > What, are people going to sue the sick for being sick near them?
> In certain cases this will happen directly. In other cases health insurance will require sick people to stay at home &c.
Not everyone has health insurance, you mental case.
@previous (A)
Mountainman on every subject:
Shit! I'm as uneducated as fuck! I better call the other guy fat so this doesn't get shown up! Anyway, I'm much too busy grooming adolescent teenage oriental girls!
> > What, are people going to sue the sick for being sick near them?
> In certain cases this will happen directly. In other cases health insurance will require sick people to stay at home &c.
Not everyone has health insurance, you mental case.
@previous (A)
Mountainman on every subject:
Shit! I'm as uneducated as fuck! I better call the other guy fat so this doesn't get shown up! Anyway, I'm much too busy grooming adolescent teenage oriental girls!
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 37 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #247,298
buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #247,299
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 20 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #247,302
buspuppie !!hkv8K5ZEY replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #247,303
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #247,304
@247,072 (A)
> > The bulk of your claim boils down to: "I don't care what historical precedent, Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, or anyone else in a position to make the determination says. My interpretation of the Constitution is the only one that is right."
> Yes!
LOL Brilliant
> My argument is based upon evidence and reason
To be sure, but it seems to be selective evidence coupled with your own unique brand of reason.
> > The bulk of your claim boils down to: "I don't care what historical precedent, Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, or anyone else in a position to make the determination says. My interpretation of the Constitution is the only one that is right."
> Yes!
LOL Brilliant
> My argument is based upon evidence and reason
To be sure, but it seems to be selective evidence coupled with your own unique brand of reason.
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 22 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #247,308
@previous (C)
> LOL Brilliant
That's like saying the bulk of the atheist's claim amounts to rejection of history and tradition, the pope, the dalai lama, the bible, toe quran etc. It's pathetic sophistry, the tool of those who lack objective evidence.
> To be sure, but it seems to be selective evidence coupled with your own unique brand of reason.
Selective, yes, in that I judge what the constitution says by looking at the constitution. imagine that! Your postmodern "logic is subjective" philosophy must also be rejected.
> LOL Brilliant
That's like saying the bulk of the atheist's claim amounts to rejection of history and tradition, the pope, the dalai lama, the bible, toe quran etc. It's pathetic sophistry, the tool of those who lack objective evidence.
> To be sure, but it seems to be selective evidence coupled with your own unique brand of reason.
Selective, yes, in that I judge what the constitution says by looking at the constitution. imagine that! Your postmodern "logic is subjective" philosophy must also be rejected.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 16 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #247,317
@previous (H)
> That's like saying the bulk of the atheist's claim amounts to rejection of history and tradition
That's a really poor analogy, as the Constitution actually exists.
> logic is subjective
You are the one who seems to be embracing this thinking by dogmatically clinging to your own logic when presented with an opposing view.
> sophistry
> postmodern
Oh boy, I'm getting a boner. Is this the point where you accuse me of denying objective truth?
> That's like saying the bulk of the atheist's claim amounts to rejection of history and tradition
That's a really poor analogy, as the Constitution actually exists.
> logic is subjective
You are the one who seems to be embracing this thinking by dogmatically clinging to your own logic when presented with an opposing view.
> sophistry
> postmodern
Oh boy, I'm getting a boner. Is this the point where you accuse me of denying objective truth?
(Edited 29 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #247,347
@previous (C)
> > That's like saying the bulk of the atheist's claim amounts to rejection of history and tradition
> That's a really poor analogy, as the Constitution actually exists.
Theism is a conclusion based upon observations of the physical world. Unless you wish to deny matter, there is no difference. Not that the analogy is in any way dependent on the constitution's existence. You do understand what an analogy is, right?
> You are the one who seems to be embracing this thinking by dogmatically clinging to your own logic when presented with an opposing view.
> own logic
Your claim that I embrace the subjectivity of logic requires that logic be subjective. You're begging the question. I dispute subjective logic. If you put the wrong data in you'll get the wrong answer; that is not a failure of logic.
> Oh boy, I'm getting a boner. Is this the point where you accuse me of denying objective truth?
You do not deny objective truth, but at this point you seem to argue that it can not be known.
Your argument is more of the same. You are desirous of moving the conversation away from the evidence, which supports my view, in favor of arguments from tradition, arguments from popularity, ad hominems &c.
I desire to find truth through empirical evidence and reason; you are desirous of upholding a particular idea that justifies certain behavior. This is unscientific and unlikely to lead to truth.
> > That's like saying the bulk of the atheist's claim amounts to rejection of history and tradition
> That's a really poor analogy, as the Constitution actually exists.
Theism is a conclusion based upon observations of the physical world. Unless you wish to deny matter, there is no difference. Not that the analogy is in any way dependent on the constitution's existence. You do understand what an analogy is, right?
> You are the one who seems to be embracing this thinking by dogmatically clinging to your own logic when presented with an opposing view.
> own logic
Your claim that I embrace the subjectivity of logic requires that logic be subjective. You're begging the question. I dispute subjective logic. If you put the wrong data in you'll get the wrong answer; that is not a failure of logic.
> Oh boy, I'm getting a boner. Is this the point where you accuse me of denying objective truth?
You do not deny objective truth, but at this point you seem to argue that it can not be known.
Your argument is more of the same. You are desirous of moving the conversation away from the evidence, which supports my view, in favor of arguments from tradition, arguments from popularity, ad hominems &c.
I desire to find truth through empirical evidence and reason; you are desirous of upholding a particular idea that justifies certain behavior. This is unscientific and unlikely to lead to truth.
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #247,445
Ron Paul has shown us all how full of shit the Republican party really is. They don't want smaller government at all. They want government that tells us what to do and backs us into a corner. (the exact same thing the dems want, btw). I'm saddened that so few Americans can see what has really been happening to our country over the last decade.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #247,476
@247,347 (A)
> Theism is a conclusion based upon observations of the physical world.
This is good stuff, keep it going. I'm dying over here.
> Theism is a conclusion based upon observations of the physical world.
This is good stuff, keep it going. I'm dying over here.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 27 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #247,484
@previous (C)
> > Theism is a conclusion based upon observations of the physical world.
> This is good stuff, keep it going. I'm dying over here.
I see you have finally disengaged from the debate. Perhaps the cognitive dissonance became too much.
> > Theism is a conclusion based upon observations of the physical world.
> This is good stuff, keep it going. I'm dying over here.
I see you have finally disengaged from the debate. Perhaps the cognitive dissonance became too much.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #247,497
@previous (A)
Once you conceded your "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" philosophy, I figured there wasn't much farther to go. Some crap answers detailing your inability to follow an analogy and using the same tired rhetoric don't hold much promise of excitement.
I would really be interested in hearing you explain why theism is a conclusion based upon observations of the physical world. Do you really believe this?
Once you conceded your "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" philosophy, I figured there wasn't much farther to go. Some crap answers detailing your inability to follow an analogy and using the same tired rhetoric don't hold much promise of excitement.
I would really be interested in hearing you explain why theism is a conclusion based upon observations of the physical world. Do you really believe this?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 38 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #247,515
@previous (C)
> Once you conceded your "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" philosophy, I figured there wasn't much farther to go. Some crap answers detailing your inability to follow an analogy and using the same tired rhetoric don't hold much promise of excitement.
You are confusing our arguments! My argument was to look at the evidence, and use reason. Your argument was to find a group of people who support a position, then claim that I must be wrong because I didn't agree with them! I believe that you do not understand what the purpose of an analogy is, making such a line of communication difficult, if not impossible.
> I would really be interested in hearing you explain why theism is a conclusion based upon observations of the physical world. Do you really believe this?
Yes. Theism is an attempt to explain the natural world. Man looked at his surroundings and posited deity/ies creating and controlling it.
> Once you conceded your "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" philosophy, I figured there wasn't much farther to go. Some crap answers detailing your inability to follow an analogy and using the same tired rhetoric don't hold much promise of excitement.
You are confusing our arguments! My argument was to look at the evidence, and use reason. Your argument was to find a group of people who support a position, then claim that I must be wrong because I didn't agree with them! I believe that you do not understand what the purpose of an analogy is, making such a line of communication difficult, if not impossible.
> I would really be interested in hearing you explain why theism is a conclusion based upon observations of the physical world. Do you really believe this?
Yes. Theism is an attempt to explain the natural world. Man looked at his surroundings and posited deity/ies creating and controlling it.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 25 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #247,527
@previous (A)
The evidence here (the text of the Constitution) has been cited and presented numerous times. I have slowly walked through an interpretation of that. You have a different interpretation. At this point, I demonstrated that your interpretation hasn't been embraced or upheld by anyone in a position to make that determination. After this, you decided that you know better and insisted that everyone else was wrong. That's fine.
You are welcome to your interpretation, but there is nowhere to go once your position rests entirely on you insisting that you are right. You could believe that the Constitution contains messages put there by ancient aliens if you wanted to, and no one could prove satisfactorily that it didn't as long you keep believing it. It's a dead-end argument.
> Theism is an attempt to explain the natural world.
Sure
> Man looked at his surroundings and posited deity/ies creating and controlling it.
But there is a logical leap there. How is a deity the natural conclusion among the multitude available?
The evidence here (the text of the Constitution) has been cited and presented numerous times. I have slowly walked through an interpretation of that. You have a different interpretation. At this point, I demonstrated that your interpretation hasn't been embraced or upheld by anyone in a position to make that determination. After this, you decided that you know better and insisted that everyone else was wrong. That's fine.
You are welcome to your interpretation, but there is nowhere to go once your position rests entirely on you insisting that you are right. You could believe that the Constitution contains messages put there by ancient aliens if you wanted to, and no one could prove satisfactorily that it didn't as long you keep believing it. It's a dead-end argument.
> Theism is an attempt to explain the natural world.
Sure
> Man looked at his surroundings and posited deity/ies creating and controlling it.
But there is a logical leap there. How is a deity the natural conclusion among the multitude available?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #247,529
@previous (C)
> The evidence here (the text of the Constitution) has been cited and presented numerous times. I have slowly walked through an interpretation of that. You have a different interpretation.
Our interpretations differed in that yours required more than the text provided - inferences, implications &c., which I showed render the constitution illogical. You never addressed these refutations.
> At this point, I demonstrated that your interpretation hasn't been embraced or upheld by anyone in a position to make that determination. After this, you decided that you know better and insisted that everyone else was wrong. That's fine.
Everyone is in a position to make that determination. Not everyone is in a position to enforce their determination.
> You are welcome to your interpretation, but there is nowhere to go once your position rests entirely on you insisting that you are right.
My position rests upon evidence, and reason. Your position rests upon tradition, consensus, and a poorly written, illogical constitution.
> You could believe that the Constitution contains messages put there by ancient aliens if you wanted to, and no one could prove satisfactorily that it didn't as long you keep believing it. It's a dead-end argument.
They would provide evidence contrary, or argue that there is no evidence to support such a conclusion. They would show that such a theory is not logically required. That is how to convince people. Arguments dead end when people appeal to tradition and consensus instead of evidence and reason.
> But there is a logical leap there. How is a deity the natural conclusion among the multitude available?
It is a conclusion. I never said it was the only conclusion, the "natural" (whatever that is supposed to mean) conclusion, or the right conclusion.
> The evidence here (the text of the Constitution) has been cited and presented numerous times. I have slowly walked through an interpretation of that. You have a different interpretation.
Our interpretations differed in that yours required more than the text provided - inferences, implications &c., which I showed render the constitution illogical. You never addressed these refutations.
> At this point, I demonstrated that your interpretation hasn't been embraced or upheld by anyone in a position to make that determination. After this, you decided that you know better and insisted that everyone else was wrong. That's fine.
Everyone is in a position to make that determination. Not everyone is in a position to enforce their determination.
> You are welcome to your interpretation, but there is nowhere to go once your position rests entirely on you insisting that you are right.
My position rests upon evidence, and reason. Your position rests upon tradition, consensus, and a poorly written, illogical constitution.
> You could believe that the Constitution contains messages put there by ancient aliens if you wanted to, and no one could prove satisfactorily that it didn't as long you keep believing it. It's a dead-end argument.
They would provide evidence contrary, or argue that there is no evidence to support such a conclusion. They would show that such a theory is not logically required. That is how to convince people. Arguments dead end when people appeal to tradition and consensus instead of evidence and reason.
> But there is a logical leap there. How is a deity the natural conclusion among the multitude available?
It is a conclusion. I never said it was the only conclusion, the "natural" (whatever that is supposed to mean) conclusion, or the right conclusion.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 48 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #247,540
@previous (A)
> Our interpretations differed in that yours required more than the text provided
We've been over this. Your interpretation would require language indicating that the first clause is defined by the rest of the enumerated powers rather than being a power in and of itself. I keep telling you that there is no language in the Constitution to indicate this or that the first clause is in any way restricted by the following clauses. You are still building a case on nothing more than your pet interpretation no matter how often you claim to following reason or logic.
> It is a conclusion. I never said it was the only conclusion, the "natural" (whatever that is supposed to mean) conclusion, or the right conclusion.
*rolls eyes*
> Our interpretations differed in that yours required more than the text provided
We've been over this. Your interpretation would require language indicating that the first clause is defined by the rest of the enumerated powers rather than being a power in and of itself. I keep telling you that there is no language in the Constitution to indicate this or that the first clause is in any way restricted by the following clauses. You are still building a case on nothing more than your pet interpretation no matter how often you claim to following reason or logic.
> It is a conclusion. I never said it was the only conclusion, the "natural" (whatever that is supposed to mean) conclusion, or the right conclusion.
*rolls eyes*
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #247,541
@previous (C)
> > Our interpretations differed in that yours required more than the text provided
> We've been over this. Your interpretation would require language indicating that the first clause is defined by the rest of the enumerated powers rather than being a power in and of itself.
The first clause contains several powers: the power to tax, and the power to pay the debts. These are not defined by the rest of the enumerated powers.
> I keep telling you that there is no language in the Constitution to indicate this or that the first clause is in any way restricted by the following clauses.
Strawman, this is not what is being argued. I am still unsure as to whether you even understand my argument, or if you are deliberately being obtuse and attempting to argue from this angle to justify your purpose.
> You are still building a case on nothing more than your pet interpretation no matter how often you claim to following reason or logic.
The case is my interpretation, it is built upon the evidence and reason.
> *rolls eyes*
Is that how you concede error?
> > Our interpretations differed in that yours required more than the text provided
> We've been over this. Your interpretation would require language indicating that the first clause is defined by the rest of the enumerated powers rather than being a power in and of itself.
The first clause contains several powers: the power to tax, and the power to pay the debts. These are not defined by the rest of the enumerated powers.
> I keep telling you that there is no language in the Constitution to indicate this or that the first clause is in any way restricted by the following clauses.
Strawman, this is not what is being argued. I am still unsure as to whether you even understand my argument, or if you are deliberately being obtuse and attempting to argue from this angle to justify your purpose.
> You are still building a case on nothing more than your pet interpretation no matter how often you claim to following reason or logic.
The case is my interpretation, it is built upon the evidence and reason.
> *rolls eyes*
Is that how you concede error?
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 56 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #247,544
@previous (A)
> The first clause contains several powers: the power to tax, and the power to pay the debts. These are not defined by the rest of the enumerated powers.
You are claiming here @246,310 (A) that:
> Taxation provides for the "common Defence and general Welfare" through the other enumerated powers.
According to you, the power to tax depends on the following clauses. According to you, the language of the first clause is defined by the later clauses. There is no language in the Constitution that supports that.
> Strawman, this is not what is being argued.
I'm quoting your arguments. If this is not what is being argued, then get your argument straight.
> The first clause contains several powers: the power to tax, and the power to pay the debts. These are not defined by the rest of the enumerated powers.
You are claiming here @246,310 (A) that:
> Taxation provides for the "common Defence and general Welfare" through the other enumerated powers.
According to you, the power to tax depends on the following clauses. According to you, the language of the first clause is defined by the later clauses. There is no language in the Constitution that supports that.
> Strawman, this is not what is being argued.
I'm quoting your arguments. If this is not what is being argued, then get your argument straight.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #247,548
@previous (C)
> You are claiming here @246,310 (A) that:
> > Taxation provides for the "common Defence and general Welfare" through the other enumerated powers.
> According to you, the power to tax depends on the following clauses. According to you, the language of the first clause is defined by the later clauses. There is no language in the Constitution that supports that.
It is hard to tell whether you don't understand or are deliberately misrepresenting, so I apologize if I am terse where you are merely confused. The power to tax is limited only by the requirement that it be for the common defense and general welfare.
> I'm quoting your arguments. If this is not what is being argued, then get your argument straight.
My argument is straight: I imagine you are using your peculiar exegetical techniques of inference and reading between the lines.
> You are claiming here @246,310 (A) that:
> > Taxation provides for the "common Defence and general Welfare" through the other enumerated powers.
> According to you, the power to tax depends on the following clauses. According to you, the language of the first clause is defined by the later clauses. There is no language in the Constitution that supports that.
It is hard to tell whether you don't understand or are deliberately misrepresenting, so I apologize if I am terse where you are merely confused. The power to tax is limited only by the requirement that it be for the common defense and general welfare.
> I'm quoting your arguments. If this is not what is being argued, then get your argument straight.
My argument is straight: I imagine you are using your peculiar exegetical techniques of inference and reading between the lines.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 39 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #247,550
@previous (A)
> The power to tax is limited only by the requirement that it be for the common defense and general welfare.
And your position (as you state here: @246,318 (A)) is that "common defense" and "general welfare" pertain only to the remaining clauses. According to you, the language of the first clause is defined by the later clauses. There is no language that explicitly states this.
> It is hard to tell whether you don't understand
I am only citing what you have argued here.
> The power to tax is limited only by the requirement that it be for the common defense and general welfare.
And your position (as you state here: @246,318 (A)) is that "common defense" and "general welfare" pertain only to the remaining clauses. According to you, the language of the first clause is defined by the later clauses. There is no language that explicitly states this.
> It is hard to tell whether you don't understand
I am only citing what you have argued here.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 21 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #247,565
@previous (C)
> And your position (as you state here: @246,318 (A)) is that "common defense" and "general welfare" pertain only to the remaining clauses.
No, I am arguing that authority to legislate, and thus to appropriate money from the treasury for such legislation (money that was raised through taxation for the common defence and general welfare) is found in Section 1 Article 8.
> According to you, the language of the first clause is defined by the later clauses. There is no language that explicitly states this.
This is NOT what I argue. The first clause is interpreted by itself. It stands alone. It does not need to be referred back to after one has read the other clauses.
> I am only citing what you have argued here.
That's not the relevant point. It is whether you are trolling or unable to grasp simple concepts and ideas.
> And your position (as you state here: @246,318 (A)) is that "common defense" and "general welfare" pertain only to the remaining clauses.
No, I am arguing that authority to legislate, and thus to appropriate money from the treasury for such legislation (money that was raised through taxation for the common defence and general welfare) is found in Section 1 Article 8.
> According to you, the language of the first clause is defined by the later clauses. There is no language that explicitly states this.
This is NOT what I argue. The first clause is interpreted by itself. It stands alone. It does not need to be referred back to after one has read the other clauses.
> I am only citing what you have argued here.
That's not the relevant point. It is whether you are trolling or unable to grasp simple concepts and ideas.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #247,566
@previous (A)
> I am arguing that authority to legislate, and thus to appropriate money from the treasury for such legislation (money that was raised through taxation for the common defence and general welfare) is found in Section 1 Article 8.
Okay. You don't feel the bill in question falls under general welfare?
> I am arguing that authority to legislate, and thus to appropriate money from the treasury for such legislation (money that was raised through taxation for the common defence and general welfare) is found in Section 1 Article 8.
Okay. You don't feel the bill in question falls under general welfare?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 30 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #247,568
@previous (C)
There is no authority to legislate for common defence or general welfare, hence no ability to appropriate money from the treasury. There is only a requirement that taxes be limited to that which is for the common defence or general welfare.
There is no authority to legislate for common defence or general welfare, hence no ability to appropriate money from the treasury. There is only a requirement that taxes be limited to that which is for the common defence or general welfare.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #247,571
@previous (A)
> There is only a requirement that taxes be limited to that which is for the common defence or general welfare.
You understand they are appropriating tax money, correct? You don't feel health and health research falls within general welfare?
> There is only a requirement that taxes be limited to that which is for the common defence or general welfare.
You understand they are appropriating tax money, correct? You don't feel health and health research falls within general welfare?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #247,575
@previous (C)
> You understand they are appropriating tax money, correct? You don't feel health and health research falls within general welfare?
There is no authority to legislate common defence and general welfare, hence no ability to spend.
> You understand they are appropriating tax money, correct? You don't feel health and health research falls within general welfare?
There is no authority to legislate common defence and general welfare, hence no ability to spend.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #247,578
@previous (A)
> There is no authority to legislate common defence and general welfare, hence no ability to spend.
They are legislating a tax and appropriating those funds. This clearly falls within their power.
Those funds are spent on health and health research. You don't feel health and health research falls within general welfare?
> There is no authority to legislate common defence and general welfare, hence no ability to spend.
They are legislating a tax and appropriating those funds. This clearly falls within their power.
Those funds are spent on health and health research. You don't feel health and health research falls within general welfare?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 14 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #247,947
@previous (C)
> They are legislating a tax and appropriating those funds. This clearly falls within their power.
"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law."
The only laws congress have the power to make are those "which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers".
> Those funds are spent on health and health research. You don't feel health and health research falls within general welfare?
The federal government has no authority to make laws for the common defence and general welfare, except where specifically ennumerated in Article 1 Section 8.
> They are legislating a tax and appropriating those funds. This clearly falls within their power.
"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law."
The only laws congress have the power to make are those "which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers".
> Those funds are spent on health and health research. You don't feel health and health research falls within general welfare?
The federal government has no authority to make laws for the common defence and general welfare, except where specifically ennumerated in Article 1 Section 8.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #247,966
@previous (A)
> "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law."
Congress, as a legislative body, is passing a bill into law. They are legislating a tax and appropriating those funds. This clearly falls within their power.
> The only laws congress have the power to make are those "which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers".
"Foregoing powers" would include the first clause listed in the section.
And it properly reads:
The Congress shall have Power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing Powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
> The federal government has no authority to make laws for the common defence and general welfare, except where specifically ennumerated in Article 1 Section 8.
The first clause in section 8 grants such a power. You don't feel health and health research falls within general welfare?
> "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law."
Congress, as a legislative body, is passing a bill into law. They are legislating a tax and appropriating those funds. This clearly falls within their power.
> The only laws congress have the power to make are those "which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers".
"Foregoing powers" would include the first clause listed in the section.
And it properly reads:
The Congress shall have Power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing Powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
> The federal government has no authority to make laws for the common defence and general welfare, except where specifically ennumerated in Article 1 Section 8.
The first clause in section 8 grants such a power. You don't feel health and health research falls within general welfare?
(Edited 20 seconds later.)
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #248,057
lol mountaintard
Erad67 replied with this 15 years ago, 21 hours later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #248,607
@247,189 (.)
> Do you not realize that the right to free healthcare is an important part of the defense against the war on health?
Right to free health care? Sorry, no such right exists.
Also, you do realize that the "war on health" would have as it's goal poor health, right?
> Do you not realize that the right to free healthcare is an important part of the defense against the war on health?
Right to free health care? Sorry, no such right exists.
Also, you do realize that the "war on health" would have as it's goal poor health, right?
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 18 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #248,608
@247,347 (A)
> Theism is a conclusion based upon observations of the physical world.
Explain how this is true without resorting to "I don't know how this came about, therefore, god did it."
> Theism is a conclusion based upon observations of the physical world.
Explain how this is true without resorting to "I don't know how this came about, therefore, god did it."
Walter Calton !0VegJ9Jl.Q replied with this 15 years ago, 45 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #248,610
@248,607 (Erad67)
> Right to free health care? Sorry, no such right exists.
Fine. Privilege to free health care so long as one is an US citizen.
> Right to free health care? Sorry, no such right exists.
Fine. Privilege to free health care so long as one is an US citizen.